Search form

Massachusetts High Court Paves Way for Employees to Engage in ‘Self-Help’ Discovery

By Brian E. Lewis
  • June 13, 2016

The highest court in Massachusetts has ruled that, in certain instances, an employee can access and obtain an employer’s records in order to support a claim of employment discrimination. Verdrager v. Mintz Levin, No. SJC-11901 (May 31, 2016).

According to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, employers must balance the efficiency of document sharing with their employees with the risk that employees will conduct their own self-help-discovery before and after initiating litigation.

Background

The plaintiff, a former associate at the defendant law firm, alleged that she was subjected to gender discrimination and unlawful retaliation. While still employed at the law firm (and after filing a claim of discrimination with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”)), the plaintiff accessed the firm’s document management system, searching for documents and communications that could support her discrimination claim. She accessed and forwarded dozens of documents to her personal email account, even sharing some with her attorney. The law firm terminated the plaintiff, contending that she unlawfully accessed law firm documents.

Self-Help Discovery

The plaintiff alleged that she was discriminated against based on her gender and that the firm fired her in retaliation for filing her MCAD complaint. In ruling that the plaintiff’s claims can proceed to a jury, the SJC also ruled on whether her “self-help” discovery could be considered “protected activity” under the state’s anti-retaliation laws. The SJC held that, in certain instances, this form of “self-help discovery” may constitute protected activity.

The SJC explained that a court must consider the “totality of the circumstances” to determine whether the plaintiff’s actions could be protected activity. It said that courts must consider the following seven factors:

  1. how the employee came to have possession of, or access to, the document;
  2. a balancing of the relevance of the documents to the employee’s suit with the disruption caused to the employer’s ordinary business by the access;
  3. the strength of the employee’s expressed reason for copying the document rather than obtaining it through pre-trial discovery;
  4. whether the employee shared the document only with her attorney or also with other employees;
  5. the strength of the employer’s interest in keeping the document confidential;
  6. whether the employee violated “a clearly identified company policy on privacy or confidentiality”; and
  7. and the broad remedial purposes of the anti-discrimination laws.

The Court did not apply the above analysis to the plaintiff’s actions, instead remanding the task for a jury to consider.

***

Following the Court’s decision, in at least some circumstances, an employee may access company databases and records to support claims of discrimination. Companies, therefore, should review their practices, policies, and procedures with respect to the safe-guarding, storage, and maintenance of confidential documents. As has long been the case, employers are well-served by ensuring that employees generally are given access only to those documents they need to perform their jobs.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to discuss these issues and other workplace matters.

Ethan Kenerson, a summer associate, assisted in the writing of this article.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm with more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries. Having built its reputation on providing premier workplace law representation to management, the firm has grown to include leading practices in the areas of government relations, healthcare and sports law. For more information, visit www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

March 20, 2019

New Jersey Prohibits Enforcement of Non-Disclosure Provisions in Settlement Agreements, Other Contracts

March 20, 2019

A sweeping amendment to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) bars enforcement of non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements and employment contracts, and prohibits the waiver of substantive and procedural rights under the statute. The amendment applies to all contracts and agreements entered into, renewed, modified, or... Read More

February 28, 2019

Portland, Oregon, Bars Discrimination Against Atheists, Agnostics

February 28, 2019

An amendment to the civil rights code of Portland, Oregon, extends protections against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations to atheists, agnostics, and other “non-believers.” Religious facilities are expressly exempt. The Portland City Code, chapter 23.01, already prohibits discrimination on the basis of... Read More

February 27, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) Is Not Subject to Equitable Tolling

February 27, 2019

In a decision important to class action practice, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which establishes a 14-day deadline to seek permission to appeal an order granting or denying class certification, is not subject to equitable tolling. Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, No. 17-1094 (Feb. 26, 2019... Read More

Related Practices